text:
Speech by Major General Robert Scales USA (Ret) at Truman Library, 12 September 2009
Mr. Skelton, Mr Cleaver, distinguished guests and, most importantly, fellow veterans. What a great thrill it is see my comrades in arms assembled here so many years after we shared our experiences in war.
Firebase Bastogne, Vietnam 1970
Let me give you the bottom line up front: I'm proud I served in Vietnam. Like you I didn't kill innocents, I killed the enemy; I didn't fight for big oil or for some lame conspiracy. I fought for a country I believed in and for the buddies who kept me alive. Like you I was troubled that, unlike my father, I didn't come back to a grateful nation. It took a generation and another war, Desert Storm, for the nation to come back to me.
Also like you I remember the war being 99 percent boredom and one percent pure abject terror. But not all my memories of Vietnam are terrible. There were times when I enjoyed my service in combat. Such sentiment must seem strange to a society today that has, thanks to our superb volunteer military, been completely insulated from war. If they thought about Vietnam at all our fellow citizens would imagine that fifty years would have been sufficient to erase this unpleasant war from our conscientiousness. Looking over this assembly it's obvious that the memory lingers, and those of us who fought in that war remember.
The question is why? If this war was so terrible why are we here? It's my privilege today to try to answer that question not only for you, brother veterans, but maybe for a wider audience for whom, fifty years on, Vietnam is as strangely distant as World War One was to our generation.
American soldiers in France, 1918
Vietnam is seared in our memory for the same reason that wars have lingered in the minds of soldiers for as long as wars have been fought. From Marathon to Mosul young men and now women have marched off to war to learn that the cold fear of violent death and the prospects of killing another human being heighten the senses and sear these experiences deeply and irrevocably into our souls and linger in the back recesses of our minds.
After Vietnam we may have gone on to thrilling lives or dull; we might have found love or loneliness, success or failure. But our experiences have stayed with us in brilliant Technicolor and with a clarity undiminished by time. For what ever primal reason war heightens the senses. When in combat we see sharper, hear more clearly and develop a sixth sense about everything around us.
Remember the sights? I recall sitting in the jungle one bright moonlit night marveling on the beauty of Vietnam. How lush and green it was; how attractive and gentle the people, how stoic and unmoved they were amid the chaos that surrounded them.
Do you remember the sounds? Where else could you stand outside a bunker and listen to the cacophonous mix of Jimi Hendrix, Merle Haggard and Jefferson Airplane? Or how about the sounds of incoming? Remember it wasn't a boom like in the movies but a horrifying noise like a passing train followed by a crack and the whistle of flying fragments.
Firebase Currahee, Vietnam 1969
Remember the smells? The sharpness of cordite, the choking stench of rotting jungle and the tragic sweet smell of enemy dead.
I remember the touch, the wet, sticky sensation when I touched one of my wounded soldiers one last time before the medevac rushed him forever from our presence but not from my memory, and the guilt I felt realizing that his pain was caused by my inattention and my lack of experience. Even taste is a sense that brings back memories. Remember the end of the day after the log bird flew away leaving mail, C rations and warm beer? Only the first sergeant had sufficient gravitas to be allowed to turn the C ration cases over so that all of us could reach in and pull out a box on the unlabeled side hoping that it wasn't going to be ham and lima beans again.
Look, forty years on I can forgive the guy who put powder in our ammunition so foul that it caused our M-16s to jam. I'm OK with helicopters that arrived late. I'm over artillery landing too close and the occasional canceled air strike. But I will never forgive the Pentagon bureaucrat who in an incredibly lame moment thought that a soldier would open a can of that green, greasy, gelatinous goo called ham and lima beans and actually eat it.
But to paraphrase that iconic war hero of our generation, Forrest Gump, life is like a case of C Rations, you never know what you're going to get because for every box of ham and lima beans there was that rapturous moment when you would turn over the box and discover the bacchanalian joy of peaches and pound cake. It's all a metaphor for the surreal nature of that war and its small pleasures . . . those who have never known war cannot believe that anyone can find joy in hot beer and cold pound cake. But we can.
FireBase Bastogne, Vietnam 1969
Another reason why Vietnam remains in our consciousness is that the experience has made us better. Don't get me wrong. I'm not arguing for war as a self improvement course. And I realize that war's trauma has damaged many of our fellow veterans physically, psychologically and morally. But recent research on Post Traumatic Stress Disorder by behavioral scientists has unearthed a phenomenon familiar to most veterans: that the trauma of war strengthens rather than weakens us (They call it Post Traumatic Growth). We know that a near death experience makes us better leaders by increasing our self reliance, resilience, self image, confidence and ability to deal with adversity. Combat veterans tend to approach the future wiser, more spiritual and content with an amplified appreciation for life. We know this is true. It's nice to see that the human scientists now agree.
I'm proud that our service left a legacy that has made today's military better. Sadly Americans too often prefer to fight wars with technology. Our experience in Vietnam taught the nation the lesson that war is inherently a human not a technological endeavor. Our experience is a distant whisper in the ear of today's technology wizards that firepower is not sufficient to win, that the enemy has a vote, that the object of war should not be to kill the enemy but to win the trust and allegiance of the people and that the ultimate weapon in this kind or war is a superbly trained, motivated, and equipped soldier who is tightly bonded to his buddies and who trusts his leaders.
I've visited our young men and women in Iraq and Afghanistan several times. On each visit I've seen first hand the strong connection between our war and theirs. These are worthy warriors who operate in a manner remarkably reminiscent of the way we fought so many years ago. The similarities are surreal. Close your eyes for a moment and it all comes rushing back. In Afghanistan I watched soldiers from my old unit, the 101st Airborne Division, as they conducted daily patrols from firebases constructed and manned in a manner virtually the same as those we occupied and fought from so many years ago. Every day these sky soldiers trudge outside the wire and climb across impossible terrain with the purpose as one sergeant put it - to kill the bad guys, protect the god guys and bring home as many of my soldiers as I can. You legacy is alive and well. You should be proud.
101st Airborne soldiers on patrol in Afghanistan
The timeless connection between our generation and theirs can be seen in the unity and fighting spirit of our soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan. Again and again, I get asked the same old question from folks who watch soldiers in action on television: why is their morale so high? Don't they know the American people are getting fed up with these wars? Don't they know Afghanistan is going badly? Often they come to me incredulous about what they perceive as a misspent sense of patriotism and loyalty.
I tell them time and again what every one of you sitting here today, those of you who have seen the face of war, understand: it's not really about loyalty. It's not about a belief in some abstract notion concerning war aims or national strategy. It's not even about winning or losing. On those lonely firebases as we dug through C ration boxes and drank hot beer we didn't argue the righteousness of our cause or ponder the latest pronouncements from McNamara or Nixon or Ho Chi Minh for that matter. Some of us might have trusted our leaders or maybe not. We might have been well informed and passionate about the protests at home or maybe not. We might have groused about the rich and privileged who found a way to avoid service but we probably didn't. We might have volunteered for the war to stop the spread of global communism or maybe we just had a failing semester and got swept up in the draft.
In war young soldiers think about their buddies. They talk about families, wives and girlfriends and relate to each other through very personal confessions. For the most part the military we served with in Vietnam did not come from the social elite. We didn't have Harvard degrees or the pedigree of political bluebloods. We were in large measure volunteers and draftees from middle and lower class America. Just as in Iraq today we came from every corner of our country to meet in a beautiful yet harsh and forbidding place, a place that we've seen and experienced but can never explain adequately to those who were never there.
Soldiers suffer, fight and occasionally die for each other. It's as simple as that. What brought us to fight in the jungle was no different than the motive force that compels young soldiers today to kick open a door in Ramadi with the expectation that what lies on the other side is either an innocent huddling with a child in her arms or a fanatic insurgent yearning to buy his ticket to eternity by killing the infidel. No difference. Patriotism and a paycheck may get a soldier into the military but fear of letting his buddies down gets a soldier to do something that might just as well get him killed.
101st trooper in combat in Afghanistan
What makes a person successful in America today is a far cry from what would have made him a success in the minds of those assembled here today. Big bucks gained in law or real estate, or big deals closed on the stock market made some of our countrymen rich. But as they have grown older they now realize that they have no buddies. There is no one who they are willing to die for or who is willing to die for them. William Manchester served as a Marine in the Pacific during World War II and put the sentiment precisely right when he wrote: "Any man in combat who lacks comrades who will die for him, or for whom he is willing to die is not a man at all. He is truly damned."
The Anglo Saxon heritage of buddy loyalty is long and frightfully won. Almost six hundred years ago the English king, Henry V, waited on a cold and muddy battlefield to face a French army many times his size. Shakespeare captured the ethos of that moment in his play Henry V. To be sure Shakespeare wasn't there but he was there in spirit because he understood the emotions that gripped and the bonds that brought together both king and soldier. Henry didn't talk about national strategy. He didn't try to justify faulty intelligence or ill formed command decisions that put his soldiers at such a terrible disadvantage. Instead, he talked about what made English soldiers fight and what in all probably would allow them to prevail the next day against terrible odds. Remember this is a monarch talking to his men:
This story shall the good man teach his son;
And Crispin Crispian shall ne'er go by,
From this day to the ending of the world,
But we in it shall be remembered-
We few, we happy few, we band of brothers;
For he to-day that sheds his blood with me Shall be my brother;
be he ne'er so vile,
This day shall gentle his condition;
And gentlemen in England now-a-bed
Shall think themselves accurs'd they were not here,
And hold their manhoods cheap whiles any speaks
That fought with us upon Saint Crispin's day.
Laurence Olivier playing Henry V in the 1944 film
You all here assembled inherit the spirit of St Crispin's day. You know and understand the strength of comfort that those whom you protect, those in America now abed, will never know. You have lived a life of self awareness and personal satisfaction that those who watched you from afar in this country who hold their manhood cheap can only envy.
I don't care whether America honors or even remembers the good service we performed in Vietnam. It doesn't bother me that war is an image that America would rather ignore. It's enough for me to have the privilege to be among you. It's sufficient to talk to each of you about things we have seen and kinships we have shared in the tough and heartless crucible of war.
US and Confederate dead, Gettysburg 1863
Some day we will all join those who are serving so gallantly now and have preceded us on battlefields from Gettysburg to Wanat. We will gather inside a firebase to open a case of C rations with every box peaches and pound cake. We will join with a band of brothers to recount the experience of serving something greater than ourselves. I believe in my very soul that the almightily reserves a corner of heaven, probably around a perpetual campfire where some day we can meet and embrace all of the band of brothers throughout the ages to tell our stories while envious standers-by watch and wonder how horrific and incendiary the crucible of violence must have been to bring such a disparate assemblage so close to the hand of God.
Wednesday, October 7, 2009
WHY WE FIGHT - A Vietnam Veteran's Perspective
Desert Storm,
Jefferson Airplane,
Jimi Hendrix,
Merle Haggard,
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)


text:
Monthly Archives: November 2011
Somewhere back in my Ascension post, I mentioned that nobody uses the official terminology "runes" or "power" or "honor" in my group. Similarly, when we play Catan, do we talk about "clay" and "ore"? No. You build a city out of rocks and wheat. Sheep are a structural element. That's how the game works.
This is an obvious consequence of purely nonverbal game design. Board games often do this out of a desire to save money on translation -- they don't have to rework the card art in every country to say "moutons" or "πρόβατα" or "Schaf" or whatever. (Or rather, "laine" or "μαλλί" or "Wolle".) (Or rather, "wool", because the game was originally in -- no, never mind.)
Anyhow, videogames tend to do the nonverbal thing too -- sometimes for the same reason, but sometimes for artistic effect. Look at the Lego movie game series, which has endless fun with wordlessly grunted, growled, and groaned cut scenes. (Did you know that Lego Star Wars: The Clone Wars uses many of the same voice actors as the TV show? Even though they never say a word? That's awesome.)
Sorry, what was I talking about here? Right. Ico. The original US release had half its lines in unknowable-language, and the rest in Japanese. Wordless as far as I was concerned, although the current PS3 version has English subtitles. (I'm not sure it's an improvement.) Then came Shadow of the Colossus, which was always subtitled, but only uses text when introducing the story and each chapter. The sixteen Colossi are never named.
They have names, although you have to look through supplemental material to find them. I never did, and I bet you didn't either. And that leaves open the question: what did everybody call them, when playing through SOTC that first time?
Tags: ascension, catan, epistemology, ico, shadow of the colossus.
I spent the weekend hanging out at Dangerous Readings, a small-scale (un-)conference about hypertext, interactive literature, and all that sort of thing.
The event was hosted by MIT, and organized by Eastgate, a publisher of hypertext and hypertext tools. They originally envisioned a BarCamp-style event, with sessions proposed and scheduled on the fly. But we didn't wind up being even that formal; it was just eight-to-twelve of us hanging out at MIT, talking about hypertext-like things for a weekend. Afterward there was pie.
I do not have a detailed report for you, I'm afraid. I had a really good time; the group was small enough to drill through my usual reticence. (At least by the second day...) So I was, for once, in the conversation rather than sitting back taking notes.
I'll note a few things, though:
Tags: boston, eastgate, hypertext, if, interactive fiction.
IFComp is over, and it turns out I entered this year! Cold Iron placed fifteenth of 38 entries. It's a tiny little game -- so if you're hungry for Zarf IF, you can either be disappointed that it's so small or happy that it only took a few days of my time to write. But I think it's pretty good, and reviewers seem happy with the quality of work (if not the quantity).
But there's more to the story than that. I collaborated with three other Boston IF authors to create a secret, cross-game bonus puzzle.
The idea was originally suggested by Kevin Jackson-Mead at a PR-IF meetup. He thought it would be cool if several of us entered IFComp with games that shared a metapuzzle. We talked over ideas, and then I wrote a small puzzle structure and passed it around. I set it up to fit into four games. Doug Orleans and Mike Hilborn volunteered to handle the other two parts, and we charged off on our quest.
Tags: cold iron, if, ifcomp, interactive fiction, metapuzzle, zarf.
Last week, I wrote:
In other news -- or rather, the news I started with: Meanwhile has been sent off to App Store review. If nothing goes wrong, it will be available Tuesday, November 8th...
Nothing went wrong, and so Meanwhile is available, right now, in your local iOS App Store.
Full press release is below the cut.
And Hadean Lands? It's on my "make progress every day" list now. I should have the puzzle structure completely outlined by the end of this week. That's a small step, but comforting to me.
A week ago I tweeted: "With Meanwhile stable, my Next Damn Project Slot is open as of Monday. And that means Hadean Lands (aka the Previous Damn Project)."
Perhaps you read that with a detached, urbanely ironic skepticism. Or not. Maybe Twitter can't tolerate that much irony. Who knows. Anyhow, last Monday, I opened up my HL design notes file. I brushed the dust and dinosaur vertebrae off it and read through. Here's what I quickly realized:

subset: commoncrawl


text:
Ellie joined Frontier in 2013 and has worked across a range of practice areas during her time at the company.
She predominantly works on competition, regulatory and policy issues in Frontier's telecoms practice, working for clients based in the UK, across Europe, Africa and the Middle East. During her time at Frontier, Ellie has developed experience modelling competitive interactions and optimal pricing behaviour and has applied this to assess the impact of changes in the fixed and mobile markets and the postal market for a range of different clients.
Outside of telecoms, her work has included analysis in the competition practice for UK mergers and EU competition damages cases. She has also worked in the energy, policy and transport practices for multiple clients applying economic theory to various regulatory and policy issues.
Ellie has an MSc in Economics (Distinction) from Birkbeck, University of London and a first class bachelors degree in Economics from Durham University.


text:
Although many players were rockin' the pink and purple this week (including Patty Schnyder and Svetlana Kuznetsova), it was Serena Williams who ran away with it, combining both colors in her Nike outfit. She even mixed it up with different accessories: a cap one day, and different colored headbands for the other two matches:
(What do you think of Serena's ensemble? Tell us.)
Meanwhile, Russian Nikolay Davydenko continues his love affair with clothier Airness, who has showered him with variations on his current uniform. We saw four versions in three color ways just this week — red, orange, and baby blue. Which means he had more costume changes than Serena:


text:
NEW YORK (Reuters) - Singer Audra McDonald, a five-time Tony winner, channels legendary American jazz singer Billie Holiday in the Broadway musical Lady Day At Emerson's Bar & Grill in a performance critics described as a "spellbinding tour de force" and "intoxicating".
McDonald, 43, is a classically trained soprano who won her last best actress Tony for The Gershwins' Porgy And Bess in 2012. But in Lady Day she becomes Holiday, who is considered one of the greatest jazz singers ever.
The musical, which debuted off-Broadway nearly 30 years ago, opened on Sunday at the Circle in the Square theatre for a limited 10-week run. "With her plush, classically trained soprano scaled down to jazz-soloist size, Ms. McDonald sings selections from Holiday's repertoire with sensitive musicianship and rich seams of feeling that command rapt admiration," said the New York Times.
The entertainment industry publication Variety said the musical "was waiting for a great singer like Audra McDonald to reach out and bring this tragic figure back from the grave", while the Los Angeles Times said it is a "showcase for McDonald's rare artistry".
The show, written by Lanie Robertson (Back County Crimes and Nasty Little Secrets) is set in a small, seedy bar in Philadelphia, where Holiday, in poor health, performed before a handful of people just a month before she died in 1959.
Although Robertson was not at the bar for the performance, it was described to him by a lover who was there, which prompted him to write the show.
Holiday, who was nicknamed Lady Day by saxophonist Lester Young, had what the musical's director Lonny Price (Master Harold...and the Boys) described as a Dickensian kind of upbringing.
But despite her impoverished childhood, abusive relationship and addiction, Holiday's extraordinary talent and distinctive style assured her stardom, even in the racially divided America of the 1930 and 1940s.
Although she enjoyed fame, Holiday died a poor drug addict at the age of 44.
The bio-musical depicts Holiday's tragic life through songs such as God Bless The Child, Crazy He Calls Me, Strange Fruit and What A Little Moonlight Can Do, and a monologue about her life - the poverty, drugs, a rape and the humiliation and discrimination she suffered.
The audience is transported back to 1959 and the Philadelphia club for that memorable performance. McDonald interacts with her pianist and is accompanied by a small jazz band, but it is essentially a solo performance. "In more than a dozen songs, she captures the plaintive sound, the eccentric phrasing and all the little vocal catches that identify Billie Holiday's unique style. But it's her extraordinary sensitivity as an actor that makes McDonald's interpretation memorable," said Variety.
The Hollywood Reporter was equally enthusiastic. "McDonald inhabits the role with such respect for the damaged character she's playing - not to mention such uncanny vocal transformation - that what could be a fragile construct becomes an immersive drama graced with complex character shadings," the trade publication said.


text:
Sliver 925 pendant traditional "Queen of peace"
Sliver 925 pendant traditional "Queen of peace"
Shipping & Returns
Shipping & Returns
Orders will be sent within 48 hours after you confirm the order/payment. If you do purchase on a weekend or a public holiday then your purchase will be shipped on the next business day. Once your item has been shipped you will receive a confirmation email with your order details and tracking information with a link.
If you need extra - expedited delivery time please contact us via our e-mail: firstname.lastname@example.com
Many of our items have shipping already included and marked as "Free shipping". Items which do not have shipping included are mostly products of Brač stone because of its size and weight.
We accept refund requests only and we do not accept exchange requests.
If you want to exchange your order, please first make a return and then place a new order. Return shipping is free if something went wrong with the package/item/order, but for "change of mind" is at your expense.
For more delivery&return informations contact us via our e-mail.


text:
The Oncology Institute serves a broad population of cancer patients from central Israel and throughout the country. The fast-track appointment service enables patients to be seen for their initial visit within 48 hours of contacting the institute.
Head of Medical Oncology Division
Orthopedic Oncology Acting Director
The new Assuta Hospital was opened in 2009, and claims to be the most modern hospital in the middle east.
The largest medical center in Israel and the Middle East, internationally renowned for it's medical excellence. Around 31,000 inpatients are treated annually.
Director and founder of the Suzanne Levy-Gertner Oncogenetics Unit
Director, Radiation Oncology Department
The Davidoff Center for the research and treatment of cancer is one of the most advanced facilities in the Middle East for the treatment of malignant diseases, delivering medical treatment to approximately 15% of Israel's cancer patients.
Deputy Head of the Davidoff Cancer Center's Department of Urology
A private hospital located on the shorelines of Herzliya, just off Tel Aviv, offering healthcare services to both local and foreign patients. The hospital is affiliated with over 500 Israeli physicians, many of whom hold high level positions at public hospitals.
General Surgery, Oncological Surgery
The Oncology Institute at Rambam Health Care Campus is a multi-disciplinary center for cancer treatment. It is certified by the European Society for Clinical Oncology (ESMO) as an integrated center for cancer treatment and support services, and is the only institute of its kind in Northern Israel.
Urologic Oncologist
One of the largest hospitals in Israel with 900 beds and 700 physicians. The hospital serves 1000 medical tourists annually, providing advanced medical care at the highest western standards.
Hadassah medical institution includes two university hospitals in Jerusalem – on Mt. Scopus and in Ein Kerem. Both provide advanced tetriary healthcare services in all medical specialties.
Medical Oncology & Radiotherapy
Copyright © 2008 - 2024 Health-Tourism.com, All Rights Reserved


text:
Bracing for 'Brexit'?
Prime Minister David Cameron, weakened domestically, must try to affirm Britain's future in the EU without being entangled in new moves toward EU integration, says Chatham House's Robin Niblett.
January 17, 2013 11:47 am (EST)
- Interview
- To help readers better understand the nuances of foreign policy, CFR staff writers and Consulting Editor Bernard Gwertzman conduct in-depth interviews with a wide range of international experts, as well as newsmakers.
Even as the threat of a "Grexit" recedes, European leaders are grappling with the possibility of a "Brexit" as Prime Minister David Cameron prepares to speak on Britain's place in the European Union. [Editors' note: David Cameron announced on Thursday that he will postpone his long-awaited speech on Europe again due to the hostage crisis in Algeria.] Rather than making a case for loosening ties with the EU, the prime minister will most likely focus on "negotiating the right relationship with the EU," says Robin Niblett of British think tank Chatham House. The task ahead for Cameron, he says, is to ensure that the UK's membership remains principally focused on the single market and not on any other aspect of EU integration. "[Britain] wants to be a big player in an open Europe and on trade, but it does not want to have anything to do with economic and fiscal union--nor does it want to be tied up in any other deeper political union," Niblett says.
While Cameron has rejected an immediate referendum, the expectation is that he will be making a case for Britain loosening ties with the EU. Do you agree?
I don't think he will be making a case for loosening ties with the EU. He'll be making a case for the UK negotiating the right relationship with the EU at a time when the EU is preparing to undertake a process of deepening [ties] in which the UK will not be involved. In the next few years, the process of creating a banking and monetary union for those members of the euro will create a much more tightly integrated core to Europe. And what Cameron will say is that he has to make sure that as the EU changes, the UK will not be disadvantaged by the deepening process that will be undertaken by the seventeen, soon to be eighteen, members of the eurozone, which the UK will not take part in. So what he might say is that he is looking to repatriate certain powers back to member-states as part of that process, i.e., back to the UK, but also that all member states would have certain powers repatriated as part of this process.
More on:
Cameron did not come into power planning to make Europe a central part of his prime ministership. In fact, he thought he had a deal with other EU leaders that after the ratification of the Lisbon Treaty, which took place [in 2009] before he came to power, there would be no more treaty changes. Lo and behold, two years later, Cameron finds that he's got a fiscal compact, where states that are members of the eurozone and some that aren't are pledging to keep their budgets and deficits down to certain levels, with the [European] Commission meant to oversee this. The minute they started talking about treaty change, Cameron had to get involved.
A lot of people paint this [speech] as Cameron kowtowing to ever more rowdy back benches, but one needs to understand the context. The back benches have been brought to life by the new talk of treaty change in Europe, which, from their point of view, has provided the perfect opportunity for the UK to repatriate some powers that they feel should have been repatriated a long time ago. And because Cameron is in such a weak domestic position, because the economy is not growing the way he said it would, he is suddenly in a much weaker position from which to defend himself against these attacks.
What does he risk in his attempt to repatriate powers from Brussels?
Cameron feels that he must demand something from the rest of Europe in return for saying "yes" to treaty change around monetary union in the future. So the first risk he runs is that other EU members will call his bluff. In which case, when he calls the referendum--because he will probably promise a referendum--rather than arguing in favor of staying inside the EU under a new deal, he will be forced to campaign against staying inside the EU.
The second risk he runs is that even if he gets some of what he wants, he'll never get 100 percent of what he wants. So let's say he goes ahead and renegotiates, and he manages to convince his party that it's enough, and then when it comes to the next parliament, he holds the referendum. At that point maybe the British economy isn't doing particularly well. People may vote against staying inside the EU just as a way of voting against Cameron. In other words, he runs a risk that the vote is never about whether we stay in the EU or not; it becomes a mixture of people who want to leave the EU and people who want to punish Cameron.
The third risk is that all the talk about a referendum--the fact that the UK would even be talking about holding a referendum about whether it should or shouldn't stay in the EU, which no one else in the EU is talking about at this particular time--has already damaged the UK's standing with other EU member states and potentially the U.S. Even if we win a referendum, people will not feel that the UK really is committed to Europe the way everyone else is, and that we will be surely pushed to the sidelines.
More on:
Opinion polls have consistently shown that a majority of Britons would vote in favor of exiting the EU. Can we attribute this sentiment solely to the euro crisis or are there other issues at play as well?
First of all, one needs [to stay abreast of the] the current polls. ComRes conducted a poll back in October, where a little more than 50 percent [of those polled] voted to leave. Their latest poll now has 42 percent voting to stay and 33 percent voting to leave. In the last two to three months, there have been active campaigns by some of pro-European elements in the UK basically saying, "Hey look, this talk about leaving the EU is ridiculous."
"[The United Kingdom] wants to be a big player in an open Europe and on trade, but it does not want to have anything to do with economic and fiscal union—nor does it want to be tied up in any other deeper political union."
If you ask people the question, "Do you like the EU?," you'll hear, "No I don't like it." When asked, "If you had the chance to get out, would you get out?," some people reply, "Yeah, I think so." But if you really present them with the facts--"Would you be willing to risk British jobs or growth leaving the EU?"--they [are less sure]. We did some polling on this, and given the ideal solution--where we are principally focused on the single market and not on any other aspect of EU integration--the majority votes for remaining in an EU. This is what Cameron is trying to get himself into the position to be arguing for in his speech. That is, the UK is truly committed to the single market and is an active player in foreign policy (e.g., the Iran sanctions, Syria sanctions, etc.). It wants to be a big player in an open Europe and on trade, but it does not want to have anything to do with economic and fiscal union--nor does it want to be tied up in any other deeper political union.
So is it fair to say that for countries like France and Germany, the EU is part of a larger political project that can trace its provenance back to WWII, whereas for Britain, it's mainly about economics?
"To the extent that Brits are emotional about Europe, it's to be against Europe; when we're pragmatic, we're for it."
It always has been and it always will be. We did not enter the EU with the same political imperatives [as France and Germany]. We had not been invaded, we did not lose the war, and we have historical connections to all sorts of other parts of the world from our empire and commonwealth. To the extent that Brits are emotional about Europe, it's to be against Europe; when we're pragmatic, we're for it. Whereas you could say many continental Europeans, when they're emotional are in favor of Europe; and when they're pragmatic, they're against it. So we come at it from almost the other side of the coin.
Just how important is the common market to the UK? And how would a "Brexit" affect British trade relations?
UK trade with the EU is a little under 50 percent of its total trade, so it is, by far, the biggest block. Trade is important. As important, and if not more important, is the fact that barrier-free access into the EU market, combined with the fact that the UK taxes less on labor than other continental European countries, means the UK has been a top target for direct foreign investment in the whole of the EU over the last ten years. So if we were outside the EU market--even if we renegotiated access into that market as some type of free trade agreement--we would no longer be sitting at the table writing the rules. And that could affect Britain's attractiveness as a destination for foreign investment.
Finally, the UK would no longer be part of the EU when it negotiated trade agreements with third parties, whether it be with Japan, ASEAN, India. The UK would have to negotiate its own, separate deals with those large countries and blocs. The question is, would we be able to get as good a deal? Probably not.
We saw the United States and Germany recently both warning Cameron to proceed with caution. What's at stake in a potential UK departure, and why has it caused so much alarm in the international community?
The fear in Germany is that an EU without the UK in it would not be an effective EU. From Germany's perspective, it would change the internal balance of the EU from a more open EU to a more closed EU. The UK is also a net contributor to the budget of the EU, so there would be a financial implication. [According to the European Commission, Britain's net contribution in 2011 was 7.3 billion euros.] From a foreign policy standpoint, the EU without the UK associated with its policies on Iran and Syria would weaken its voice on the international stage considerably. And there would also be the whole uncertainty of the financial center. Europe's largest financial center would be outside the EU, perhaps gaming the EU, maybe taking advantage of it, or maybe just fragmenting Europe's capital markets precisely at a time when they need the deepest capital markets they could possibly get.
From all of those standpoints, the UK being outside the EU, for most EU members, would be a negative development rather than a positive development. Not that they'll pay any price to keep the UK in--they're feeling rather fed up. But given the preference, they definitely would rather see the UK in.
From the U.S. standpoint, just take [U.S. Assistant Secretary for European Affairs Philip] Gordon at his word. From my point of view, the United States would much prefer to have the UK inside the EU. But you know what? If the UK chooses to pull out, the United States will work with it.
You don't think it would jeopardize the special relationship?
"What the UK has to watch out for is that the United States maybe doesn't care as much as we think it should. And the UK could find itself, in my opinion, in a very weak position if it were to leave the EU."
I don't think it would jeopardize the special relationship because the special relationship isn't built around the UK's membership in the EU anymore. The special relationship is about security, intelligence, military cooperation, counterterrorism, etc. And regardless of whether the UK is inside or outside the EU, the United States and UK would carry on operating very closely together. What the UK has to watch out for is that the United States maybe doesn't care as much as we think it should. And the UK could find itself in a very weak position if it were to leave the EU, because we would carry on depending on the United States as much as we do right now, but we'd have less influence over it outside the EU than inside the EU. To me, it's bad all around.
In your opinion, how likely is a "Brexit"?
When it comes to the vote, 30 percent. I don't think it's likely to happen.


text:
The African economy has been growing for the past decade at an above average rate and many African countries are still showing growth rates that rank among the highest in the world. We see an abundance of business opportunities for companies both inside and outside Africa. But you have to know where to look for them.
In a fast developing business environment like Africa, access to relevant, accurate and reliable market information is invaluable, and that is where we aimed our ambition at.
The Africa Business Panel offers its clients market research in Africa, essentially acting as the intermediary between business opportunities and potential investors. According to reliable market experts we are currently the biggest online B2B panel of Africa.
When we were in Africa, we heard that asking questions about the economy to 100 business men in the street would be better to rely upon than the official economical statistics.
Can you imagine: The doubling of GDP in Nigeria implies that the GDP for the whole region increases by more than 15%. The value of the increase amounts to as much as 40 economies roughly the size of Malawi's.
Even Shanta Devarajan, Chief Economist for the Africa Region of the World Bank, spoke about the urgent need to address the shortcomings of development statistics.
The Danish-Canadian Professor wrote a book "Poor Numbers – How we are are misled by African development statistics and what to do about it"
Read more about this article
For us it was obvious, there is a strong need for reliable data on how Africa and its economy is really doing.
In 2011, we started therefore the Africa Business Panel and some years later the Africa Purchasing Managers Index. The opinions and answers of the panel participants are providing us with real indicators of how Africa is doing, either per country or per branch. The Africa Business Panel gives you direct access to today's African executives who are shaping tomorrow's business environment.
90%top decision makers
3,000+ PMI Executives
We all know that there are still constraints that withhold foreign investors from becoming active in Africa. One of the most important constraints is the lack of reliable business data.
In order to improve African Business Data and also to make the data easily accessible, we have started the Africa Business Panel. With over 14,500 members and growing every day, this is the biggest Pan-African Online B2B Market Research Panel.
By doing so, you will help to improve the African Business Environment for investments. As a member you and your company will be entitled to some significant benefits. The more you participate in surveys, the better are your chances of benefitting from your participation.
You will nonetheless, have no obligations whatsoever and you will decide if and when you want to participate.
You will contribute to Africa's economic development since your appreciated knowledge and opinion helps to get a better fundament for doing business in Africa.
Our Market Research Surveys are shared with you as a survey participant and can be used as a benchmark.
You will receive relevant business leads first, especially if you are a regular survey participant.
As a panel member, you will have a priority position in the publications of interviews, press releases and company profiles on our website AfricaBusinessCommunities.com.
For some surveys, we reward a random selection of survey participants with Amazon.com or other gift cards that will get you items you like, from books to an iPad.
You are able to freely network with other panel members.
There will be no obligations: You can indicate whether or not you want to participate in surveys.


text:
So, did you shop yet? Well, what are you waitin' for? Get yourself on over to the MFT Boutique! Then be sure to check out what all the designers have for the New Product Tour. You can get all the links at the MFT Blog.
I'm using a couple of new sets for my project: PI – Turkey Time and Thankful Leaves and its companion dies, Die-namics Fall Leaves. I'm also using more new dies: Die-namics Sunflower, Die-namics Fishtail Flags Layers STAX, and Die-namics Framing Flourishes.
I decided to make a Thanksgiving dinner set. We're asking some friends over for dinner, so this was a perfect opportunity to make a cute invitation card and accessories. And, another chance to use Thankful Leaves :)
OK, first up is the card. I stamped the little PI and colored most of the image with Copic markers.
Except for her paper pieced dress and the "silver" platter, on which I used a silver metallic pen.
I also couldn't resist making another Die-namics Sunflower for this card. LOVE all the detail on this flower! The leaves were made with my Die-namics Royal Leaves.
And here's the inside, with the actual invitation. I'll write a little note with the specifics when I get ready to send it.
I thought it would be cute to have a menu posted. So, I printed it out and mounted it on some card stock and patterned paper. Then I cut and stamped some leaves, using the rock and roll technique, and tied on a Hot Fudge button with hemp cord before adhering them to the menu.
Here's a close up of the leaves on the menu.
I also wanted to have favors for everyone, so I came up with this super easy idea. I have these little mini lunch sacks that will be filled with a portion of the guest's dessert of choice when they leave. I made a sentiment flag with both my Die-namics Fishtail Flags STAX and the new Die-namics Fishtail Flags Layers STAX, new this month. We've been needing these layer dies so now we're all set. I stamped the sentiment on Whip Cream card stock and added a leaf trio.
Here's a close up of the leaves…
…and one of the sentiment flag. Fishtail flag layers. Be. Still. My. Heart.
There are only going to be four or five of us, but I thought a place card would be a nice touch. I stamped the name on a Die-namics Designer Labels 3 STAX die cut using my Wendy Alphabet set, added a new Die-namics Framing Flourishes die cut across the bottom and another leaf at the top.
And, last, but not least, a matching napkin ring. I cut a strip of Kraft card stock and joined it into a circle, then covered it with Tangy Orange card stock, patterned paper, and finally, a strip of Tangy Orange ribbon. To finish it off, I added another leaf cluster.
Here are the Die-namics dies I used on this project:
Thanks SO very much for stopping by! Remember, one of the members of the design team is holding some blog candy—namely a $50 voucher for the MFT Boutique. To have the best chance of winning it, you probably should comment on all of the blogs :)
Stamps: Thankful Leaves, PI – Turkey Time, Wendy Alphabet (MFT)
Paper: Kraft card stock, Whip Cream card stock, Tangy Orange card stock (MFT); Apple Cider (Bo Bunny)
Ink: Memento Rich Cocoa; Antique Linen Distress Ink (Ranger)
Accessories/tools: Vagabond; Die-namics Fall Leaves, Die-namics Sunflower, Die-namics Fishtail Flags Layers STAX, Die-namics Framing Flourishes; Die-namics Fishtail Flags STAX, Die-namics Simply Scallops, Medium, Die-namics Royal Leaves, Die-namics Designer Labels 3 STAX, Hot Fudge button, hemp cord, Tangy Orange ribbon (MFT); mini lunch bag, dew drops, foam tape


text:
Request to Amend Accountability Plan – Iowa – NCLB Policy Letters to States
July 28, 2008
The Honorable Judy Jeffrey
Director of Education
Iowa Department of Education
Grimes State Office Building
East 14th & Grand Streets
Des Moines, Iowa 50319-0146
Dear Director Jeffrey:
I am writing in response to Iowa's request to amend its state accountability plan under Title I of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (ESEA), as amended by the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLB). Following discussions between the Department and your staff, you made certain changes to your state accountability plan, which are now included in the amended state accountability plan that Iowa submitted to the Department on July 24, 2008. I am pleased to fully approve Iowa's amended plan, which we will post on the Department's website. A summary of the amendments submitted for the 2007-08 school year is enclosed with this letter. As you know, any further requests to amend Iowa's accountability plan must be submitted to the Department for review and approval as required by section 1111(f)(2) of Title I of the ESEA.
Please also be aware that approval of Iowa's accountability plan for Title I, including the amendments approved herein, does not indicate that the plan complies with Federal civil rights requirements, including Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act, and requirements under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act.
I am confident that Iowa will continue to hold schools and school districts accountable for the achievement of all students. I wish you well in your school improvement efforts. If you need any additional assistance in implementing the standards, assessment, and accountability provisions of NCLB, please do not hesitate to contact Abigail Rogers (firstname.lastname@example.com) or David Harmon (email@example.com) of my staff.
Kerri L. Briggs, Ph.D.
cc: Governor Chet Culver
Kevin Fangman
Amendments to Iowa's Accountability Plan
The following is a summary of the state's amendment requests. Please refer to the Department's website (www.ed.govhttps://www2.ed.gov/admins/lead/account/stateplans03/index.html) for Iowa's complete accountability plan.
Acceptable amendments
The following amendments are aligned with the statute and regulations.
Determining adequate yearly progress (AYP) (Element 3.1)
Revision: Iowa will incorporate its growth model into its 2007-08 AYP determinations. Iowa was approved to implement a growth model on August 15, 2007.
Including students with disabilities in AYP (Element 5.3)
Revision: Iowa will use the "proxy method" (option 1 in our guidance dated December 2005 and described in the Department's Non-Regulatory Guidance regarding Modified Academic Achievement Standards) to take advantage of the transition flexibility authorized in 34 C.F.R. § 200.20(g) regarding calculating AYP for the students with disabilities subgroup. See the Secretary's guidance at: www.ed.govhttps://www2.ed.gov/policy/speced/guid/modachieve-summary.html. Iowa will calculate a proxy to determine the percentage of students with disabilities that is equivalent to 2.0 percent of all students assessed. For the 2007-08 school year only, this proxy will then be added to the percentage of students with disabilities who are proficient. For any school or district that did not make AYP solely due to its students with disabilities subgroup, Iowa will use this adjusted percentage proficient to re-examine whether the school or district made AYP for the 2007-08 school year.
Inclusion of former students with disabilities (Element 5.3)
Revision: Iowa will no longer include students who exit the special education program in the students with disabilities subgroup for an additional two years.
Inclusion of former limited English proficient (LEP) students (Element 5.4)
Revision: Iowa will no longer include students who exit the LEP program in the LEP subgroup for an additional two years.
Graduation rate (Element 7.1)
Revision: In response to a finding from a fall 2007 Title I monitoring visit, Iowa will use its other academic indicators, graduation rate at the high school and district levels and attendance rate for elementary schools and districts without a graduating class, in its AYP determinations. Iowa also affirms that, when calculating safe harbor, a district, school, or subgroup must decrease the percentage of students who are non-proficient by 10 percent from the previous year and meet the requirement for the other academic indicator. The annual targets for graduation rate are:
School Year | Graduation Rate Target |
2007-08 | 91.3% |
2008-09 | 91.3% |
2009-10 | 91.3% |
2010-11 | 92.2% |
2011-12 | 93.1% |
2012-13 | 94.1% |
2013-14 | 95.0% |


text:
PRESS RELEASE: Boss is proud to announce the TU-3 Chromatic Tuner, an updated version of the pedalboard standard TU-2. The TU-3 is the stompbox guitar tuner for the next generation of guitarists and bassists, retaining all the features of its predecessor while adding many new tricks of its own.
Boss has been the industry leader in instrument tuning technology since 1983, when it introduced the TU-12, the world's first automatic chromatic tuner. This technology was later integrated into the popular BOSS compact pedal format with the TU-2, a stompbox that has gone on to become the bestselling pedal of all time.
The TU-3 simply makes the best even better by adding a number of functional enhancements to the original's solid specs.
Housed in a rugged Boss stompbox chassis, the TU-3 is built to last. The new high-brightness meter mode improves visibility under bright sunlight, and a newly-designed 21-segment meter light ensures super accurate and visable tuning. The proprietary Boss Accu-Pitch function visually verifies when the target pitch is attained. The sound output is muted while the tuner is on, allowing players to tune silently on stage.
Tuning modes include Chromatic and Guitar/Bass, which allows players to tune by string number, now with support for seven-string guitars and six-string basses. The TU-3's LED meter and arrow indicators clearly show when the instrument is in tune, with two different display modes to choose from.
To address the growing popularity of drop tunings in metal and hard rock music styles, Flat Tuning mode allows players to calibrate the TU-3 for tunings up to six half-steps below standard pitch. The tuner's reference pitch can be adjusted as well, over a range of 436-445Hz.
The TU-3 will be shipping in January with a retail price of $160.50.
For more information, visit Roland's official site
Information taken from official press release
Submit press releases
Email your press release to firstname.lastname@example.com
Sign up for our free weekly newsletter
The free MusicRadar newsletter serves up the week's biggest artist and product news stories alongside exclusive tuition and gear reviews. Sign up here!
Follow MusicRadar on Twitter
Get instant updates and bonus content plus chat with the team. Start here!


text:
The President of the United States has chosen to make the goal of 80% clean electricity generation by 2035 the first priority in his move to make America more competitive. In his recent State of the Union Address, Barack Obama compared this project to the 1960's moon shot program, noting we are at another "Sputnik moment" where we must innovate or be left behind.
(Unexpected editorial note: In the midst of the current events surrounding the Japanese nuclear reactors, it will be helpful to know how we can devise a practical and affordable clean energy plan without new nuclear power. This article presents just such a plan — not because of safety concerns, but because new nuclear power fails the "practical and affordable" test. — CS)
Investment, or Runaway Spending? While many applauded the President's call for innovation and investment, "eyes were rolling" among many fiscal conservatives. The President's call for investment in the future was immediately labeled as simply a call for increased government spending. This is a critical concern when we are already running a $1.6 Trillion U.S. budget deficit.
In my article from one year ago I noted the problems of both deficit spending and high unemployment were "paralyzing the nation's political life, as Americans are worried about both high unemployment and record deficits." I wrote the solution to this conundrum is investment — "to invest money now, into projects that when completed will help us individually and as a nation to save more".
The difference between investment and runaway spending is that investment pays for itself. One way it can pay for itself is to help us spend less. Another way it can pay for itself is to bring in more revenues — more sales to other countries, and more job creation.
The Way to a Fail. A profligate "Clean Energy Plan" that invests in very expensive technologies will fail. Americans won't save — we will be forced to pay more. Also, other countries won't be attracted to buy costly boondoggles — we must have something to sell that makes sense.
Past forays of the government into supporting specific energy technologies — such as corn ethanol — give pause that government can prop up exactly the wrong "solutions". Those with the best lobbyists and the most campaign contributions get the government gravy.
A Clean Energy Plan for the electric power industry is an even bigger prize and will have lobbyists all over it. If Democrats are not to be seen supporting high rollers, and Republicans are not to be RINO's (Republicans In Name Only) wasting taxpayer dollars, then a practical and affordable Clean Energy Plan must be devised.
Public opinion also opposes utility subsidies. The most popular item suggested for elimination in a recent WSJ poll was the Federal program that pays the loan payments for utilities who default on new nuclear power plants.
Rather than a subsidy program, the "80% Clean Energy" goal is in the mode of the Renewable Portfolio Standards that have already been adopted by 24 states. These are simply regulatory standards that must be followed for the privilege of operating as utilities. When utilities select prudent projects, the costs can then be recovered through electricity rates.
If a Clean Energy Standard establishes a guaranteed new market for clean energy, why would any taxpayer subsidy be required? The government should continue to promote basic research for innovation, but little else is needed from taxpayers.
What Electric Customers Need. If electricity is to continue to serve us well as a foundation of modern life, it must meet three basic needs:
Need #1: Affordable. If electricity becomes too expensive it will place a significant burden on family budgets. Home electric bills already average over $100/month, as electric rates increased 29% from 2004 to 2009 — over twice the 14% increase in CPI. If these increases continue, over the next ten years average home electric bills will rise to about $180 per month.
Image: NY Consumer Protection Board
It's not like consumers have more money. With the ongoing destruction of the middle class, American workers are experiencing declining real wages. Retiring Baby Boomers will be living on fixed incomes Will households be able to pay skyrocketing electric bills, and still buy prescriptions and groceries?
Consumers have supported clean energy standards that have price controls, such as Colorado's 2%/year limit for renewable power rate increases above the comparable cost of fossil fuel power. (See "Colorado Shows How It's Done".)
If utilities ignore affordability, however, build-out plans can come to an inglorious end. Utilities can learn a lesson from the Florida ratepayer revolt that effectively halted Florida P&L's nuclear plans after it proposed drastic rate increases to fund the new nukes.
Need #2: Always Available. Americans expect their electric utility will always "keep the lights on". This will be increasingly important as our other energy sources such as oil begin to decline. Our entire economy and indeed way of life is threatened by Peak Oil Coming Much Sooner Than Expected.
The economic disruptions from high priced oil will destroy millions of jobs if we have not prepared alternative ways to fuel our society. An increased use of electricity for transportation — with electric cars, electrified freight and passenger trains, and increased use of electric transit — is a core solution to ending our addiction to oil. Our electric grid must prepare to meet this national security challenge.
Need #3: Clean Power. Protecting our jobs and homes from severe droughts, floods, sea level rise and other impacts of climate change can prevent literally trillions of dollars of economic losses.
Americans support the prevention of activities that harm innocent victims as a legitimate role of government. Polls thus show overwhelming support for EPA efforts to cut harmful utility pollutants. According to a recently released report from the American Lung Association, coal-fired power plants produce more hazardous air pollutants (including mercury, arsenic, lead, acidic gases, and dioxins) than any other industrial polluters in the U.S.
Photo: Wikimedia Commons
Electric utilities also currently emit 39% of total U.S. carbon dioxide emissions. Because electricity can be generated from a myriad of clean sources, utilities have been asked to lead the way to achieve 80% of total projected carbon dioxide emission reductions by 2030.
Reducing Unemployment. While most consumers and businesses have maxed-out debt and cannot help the economy grow, utilities can still borrow money and invest in new job-creating projects.
Utility spending can thus help counter the current deflationary pressure from the collapse of the Consumer Credit Bubble. Spending on U.S. productive capacity is also far better than cranking up money printing presses.
If American industries develop innovative solutions, we can also export technologies to other nations to help them clean up their power grids.
Just How Big a Challenge is this Clean Energy Moonshot? The graph below presents the most recent data from the Energy Information Administration (EIA), on the sources of electricity generation in the U.S., in 2010:
If one accepts the President's definition of "Clean Energy" (though many do not especially in the wake of the Japanese nuclear accidents), the nation is already generating almost 54% of its electricity from qualifying sources — renewable energy, natural gas, and nuclear.
To meet an "80% by 2035" standard, therefore, would require a conversion of another 26% of the generation mix over the next 24 years — an average shift of 1.1%/year of total kWh's generated.
If U.S. kWh demand did not grow at all, this would require the equivalent generation of installing about 13,500 Megawatts (MW) of new wind farms each year in the U.S (after accounting for wind's kWh output per MW, and transmission losses). This is achievable — in 2009, the U.S installed 10,010 MW of new wind capacity, and "Clean Energy" will include more than wind.
Of course, if demand for electricity grows, even more new generation will be needed. If kWh use grows by 1% per year, by 2035 we will need about 30% more electricity.
Challenges Facing Electric Utilities. While consumers and politicians want utilities to supply affordable and clean power that is always available, there are major challenges facing electric utilities.
Utility Challenge #1: Demand is Soft and Unpredictable. Utilities are in the business of selling electricity, and must build new power plants to provide it. However, customers can cut kWh use and leave the utility with no ability to pay for these new power plants.
Electricity demand in the U.S. declined from 2007 to 2008, and further still in 2009. While 2010 numbers show a rebound, total kWh use for 2010 was still lower than peak U.S. kWh use in 2007.
The Great Recession is a major cause, and thus the overall macroeconomic risks from Peak Oil and other expected shocks to the economy must weigh heavily on utility planning. Electricity is only a service to the general economy. Will general economic growth collapse again?
Utility Challenge #2: Consumers Can Now Walk Away. In most parts of America, customers have still not implemented even the most basic of energy efficiency measures. The "low hanging fruit" of energy efficiency has yet to be harvested. When power bills get too high, even simple measures like a clothesline can drastically cut electricity use.
Electric customers can now "walk away" from their central utility not only through efficiency, but also by generating their own power. As recently noted by Yahoo Finance, on-site electricity generation with solar panels is now reaching parity with retail electric rates. Combined Heat and Power offers customers yet another cost-effective distributed power solution. The days of a captive customer base for central utilities are over.
The unspoken fear of all utility managers is the Death Spiral Scenario. In this nightmare, a utility commits to build a very expensive new power plant. However, when electric rates are raised to pay for the new plant, the rate shock moves customers to cut their kWh use. The utility then has no way to pay for the new power plant unless it raises rates even higher — causing a further spiral as customers cut their use even more or "walk away".
Utility Challenge #3: Unused Capacity. U.S. utilities currently have a large, relatively young, and highly-efficient fleet of natural gas combined-cycle gas turbines — that sit idle approximately 57% of the time. Their power simply isn't needed for large portions of each day.
Utilities also have impressive fields of zero-fuel-cost wind turbines — that generate a lot of inexpensive power in the middle of the night when it is not needed. However, many wind farms don't run much when their power is most needed, on hot summer days.
On those summer days, even solar produces the most power at Solar Noon, rather than late afternoon when air conditioners are running full tilt.
When those peak power times come, utilities must "pull out all the stops". Utilities use cheap-to-build but highly inefficient single-cycle gas peaker units, that provide some of the most expensive kWh's on the grid, and emit almost as much GHG emissions per kWh as coal.
Even baseload power plants that run 24 hours per day are affected greatly by fluctuations in consumer demand for electricity. Nuclear and coal plants run through the middle of the night — but they aren't paid very much for that power. An expensive baseload plant such as a new nuclear plant may need to charge about 25 cents for every kWh, but it can't get paid that much for off-peak power so its economics don't work.
Utility Challenge #4: Need to Replace Aging Power Plants. The President's challenge to the utility industry to move away from dirty power and toward clean power is actually a challenge the industry is already facing, due to the age of existing plants.
The dirtiest parts of our power plant fleet are already quite old. The capacity-weighted age of power plants in the U.S. is now 38 years old for coal, and 30 years for nuclear plants. Many if not most of the older coal plants will be retired by 2035. In contrast, natural gas plants have a capacity weighted age of only 19 years, and wind plants only 6 years.
Retiring Old Coal. The 45% of our kWh's now supplied by dirty coal must be drastically reduced. If 1.1% of total current electric generation (2.5% of current coal generation) was retired each year and shifted to clean sources, and no new coal-fired power plants were built unless they were low-carbon, the 80% Clean Energy Goal could be met.
This seems a tall order. Over the next 24 years, we would need to see a retirement or conversion of some 60% of existing coal generation. However, by 2035 the median age of the existing coal fleet would be 62 years old. This is beyond the traditional retirement age for coal plants, so it is likely at least this number of of today's old coal plants will be phased out anyway. The opportunity will be to decide how best to replace today's dirty and old power plants.
Retiring Old Nuclear? Our nuclear fleet is also quite old, and if it also has to be replaced before 2035, the challenge will be much greater. Because of this, it seems likely (however one feels about it) the Nuclear Regulatory Commission will extend the licenses of most existing U.S. nukes somewhat beyond the 2035 timeline. By then, we must already be on a path toward cleaner power, and can then take on that next wave of replacements.
While the NRC seems committed to extending nuclear licenses, this will be a massive experiment and reality will likely intrude. Aging plants tend to require ever increasing capital expenditures to keep in operation, as happened recently with the Oyster Creek power plant in New Jersey, which will close 10 years earlier than its current license allows. Public concern over radiation leaks, such as at the Vermont Yankee plant and the Japanese nuclear debacle, may also force nuclear plant shutdowns.
Utility Challenge #5: New Power Plants Are Much More Expensive. We are now obtaining over two thirds of our kWh's from coal and nuclear plants built over three decades ago. It should come as no surprise that as we replace these very old plants, newer power plants are going to cost more — a lot more — than old power plants built decades ago.
We've gotten used to driving the old paid-off clunker. Now, when the old beater finally has to be retired, the shock to the pocketbook will come.
How Much Money Will Need to Be Invested? If we have to build brand new power plants to accomplish replacement of 60% of old coal plants, it's going to matter a great deal what we choose to replace them:
Gas and Small Hydro. Just replacing the existing kWh's generated by those old coal plants is likely to cost over $250 billion in up-front capital costs (in today's dollars) if we replace those old coal plants with about 130,000 MW of the cheapest choices for new power plants — small hydro such as "Run of River" power, or gas plants using landfill gas, Combined-Heat-and-Power, or traditonal natural gas power plants.
While the small hydro and CHP plants have zero or low fuel costs, natural gas plants may require paying significant life cycle fuel costs. This used to make utility managers leery of natural gas. However, natural gas fuel is very cheap today, and expected to stay cheap for the next couple decades, so central utilities are now moving primarily to build natural gas power plants.
Natural gas plants are also compatible with wind and solar energy, as they can cycle on and off quickly. As renewable power sources come on line, natural gas plants can cut their fuel costs.
Wind and Geothermal. One step up in capital costs per annual kWh, but with zero fuel costs and therefore roughly comparable to natural gas in life cycle costs per kWh, are wind farms and geothermal power. Building enough wind turbines and geothermal (and transmission lines for these) to generate the kWh's from the retiring coal plants might cost about $600 billion — more than natural gas, but with no worries about fuel costs, and zero GHG emissions.
Concentrating Solar Power. Another step up in capital costs per annual kWh are the concentrating solar power plants — thermal CSP, concentrating photovoltaic, and Stirling Engine — now being built in the desert Southwest. These plants are competitive in their intended market — daytime peaking power — but are currently more expensive per kWh than wind or geothermal. (They will not be installed nationwide, so a comparative cost to replace all retiring coal plants is not appropriate.)
Large numbers of gas, hydro, wind and geothermal plants, and some CSP plants, have recently been built — so we know what they cost. The renewable capacity already installed and under construction dwarfs nuclear and CCS efforts.
Two new technologies, however, require much larger and more expensive power plants, and none have yet been built in the U.S.:
New Coal. If we tried instead to build new coal-fired plants with carbon capture and storage (CCS) to replace the retiring coal-fired plants, the tally would likely be in the $700 – $850 billion range. Unlike renewables, however, coal requires paying fuel costs that would grow over time. "Clean Coal" is thus a more expensive option — and we don't really know how expensive, because CCS is still an unproven technology.
New Nuclear. On the highest end of the scale, another unproven cost is new nuclear power. If we tried to build all new nuclear plants to fill this same generation need, the total bill to replace just those retiring coal plants would likely exceed $1.2 trillion dollars.
This Project is no Moon Shot — It's Much More Costly. President Obama used the example of the Apollo Moon Shot program in his Address as an inspiration for what we need to do today.
However, perhaps a more fitting comparison may be the Marshall Plan, or the mobilization effort for WWII.
The entire NASA Apollo Moon program cost was approximately $190 Billion in today's dollars. Much of this was for the development of new technologies — rather than the Clean Energy Plan's implementation of primarily existing technologies.
Replacing retiring coal plants will likely cost about $250 -$600 Billion if we build gas and renewable plants, but could cost over $1.2 Trillion if lobbyists get their way and convince Congress the most expensive power plants — CCS and nuclear — should be built.
Another cost multiplier is demand. To handle new demand, another 30% extra will be needed if there is 1% per year growth. If instead growth averages 2.5% per year, the extra to handle the new growth would be 90% more!
If we don't control kWh growth, and we also let lobbyists push Congress to build the most expensive power plants — this will be no Moon Shot, this project will be more like 10 Moon Shot Programs!
At a time of both public and government austerity, it seems imperative to limit the cost of this Clean Energy Plan with innovative and practical solutions.
Innovative Strategies To Make Clean Energy Goal Affordable. The practical strategies discussed below can keep the cost of meeting the Clean Energy Standard affordable to utilities and their ratepayers.
These innovations address the electricity system as a whole. If we do this right, the U.S. can take a leadership position to show the rest of the world how clean energy can be done economically.
Innovative Strategy #1: Do Customer Level Projects First. If the computer age had proceeded with the same mindset as the U.S. utility industry, IBM would have just continued building bigger and more expensive central computers. There would have been no PC's, and no Internet.
I remember in the early days everyone was asking — "why would I ever want a computer at home?" Today that question seems ludricrous — but only because the power of innovation was unleashed across hundreds of millions of distributed computers.
Before electric rates are raised to fund hundreds of billions or even trillions of dollars in new centralized power plants, utilities must first "firm up" the demand for centrally-generated power so it is reliably known. It would be a business disaster of monumental proportions to spend all this money on central power plants and then have consumers "walk away".
Consumers must first be given every chance to reduce their use, and to generate their own power, to reduce demands on the central power grid.
This strategy recognizes the "low hanging fruits" of energy efficiency and distributed power have not yet been harvested.
One "low hanging fruit" is the ability for utilities to tell electricity customers their current usage and offer them signals of what times of day electric costs are high or low. If electric rates are set high at peak periods and low during off-peak, customers can switch the times they do things like run their dishwasher or charge their car. The Smart Grid can even control smart appliances such as water heaters to save everyone money.
The reason customer level projects such as insulation and PV power have still not been done is that most utility customers have no access to the capital to finance these energy-saving and distributed power projects.
Utilities, however, can make money by providing 100% up-front financing through on-bill financing, folding these projects into the monthly bills of whomever lives in the property at any time.
Customer-level actions can have dramatic results. A study by the American Council for an Energy Efficient Economy (ACEEE) showed that simply implementing existing cost-effective strategies would flatten and actually reduce the Texas electricity peak demand curve (the orange area) for at least 15 years:
Utilities have for years been trying to control demand growth with "Demand Response" programs. Implementing both 0n-Bill Financing and the Smart Grid will be like "Demand Response on Steroids".
If customers are given financing, and real-time feedback, opportunities will blossom for thousands of new vendors. "We've got an app for that" will become the new motto for the electric power sector.
Innovative Strategy #2: Storage to Allow Full Use of Idle Capacity, and Full Use of Wind and Solar.
This Strategy is a major money saver because it allows better use of existing combined cycle natural gas power plants that are now under-utilized. Wind farms and base load plants that must now dump power for low revenue at times of low consumer demand would also benefit.
If these already-built power plants can be better utilized, the high fuel costs from using expensive peaker plants can be avoided. Also, by better utilizing existing plants, expensive new power plant construction can be deferred.
Storage will also solve the problem of relying on intermittent power from the wind and sun — enabling these most-abundant energy sources to become our main power supplies.
Storage will allow utilities to serve customer needs at the times of day when consumers want to use electricity, with power generated from cheaper sources.
This Innovative Strategy would install "Energy Storage Generators" as a first priority for new generation in every electric grid.
Utilities might get automobile owners to buy these Energy Storage Generators for them. Electricity-using vehicles have large batteries and electronic control systems which can be designed for two-way charging and feedback to the grid. They can be timed to charge during off-peak times, or even to know when extra wind-generated power is being produced.
If utilities or car makers warrant batteries for the extra battery cycling, and utilities offer tie-in incentives, many electric car owners may even feed power back to the grid during peak power periods.
Other economical examples of Energy Storage Generators include Compressed Air Energy Storage turbines, and Pumped-Hydro turbines.
Example Diagram of Compressed Air Energy Storage
Image Credit: PG&E
Pumped hydro storage has been used for decades with lakes and dams, pumping water uphill and then letting it fall back through turbines. Now, there are also pumped-hydro generators that do not require above ground landscapes, and which can be sited virtually anywhere. These new designs use man-made drilled shafts to pump water up and down beneath the earth's surface.
Gravity Power Energy Storage Generator
Energy Storage Generators provide dispatchable generating capacity. Many cost little more to install than traditional gas generators, so they provide a new power generation option in the low to mid range of costs, far less costly than Coal/CCS or new nuclear. They can provide enormous savings on fuel costs and new power plant costs.
Most importantly, they provide the foundation for a legacy system to continue our civilization long after finite fossil fuels and uranium run out — a 100% Renewable electricity system.
Innovative Strategy #3: Create a "Legacy" Electric System. We know that economical supplies of coal, natural gas, and uranium are going to run out, and actually quite soon. If you really think much about it — it provides little comfort to believe we have perhaps 80 years left of uranium or 100 years of natural gas. That's no time at all.
Are we going to do the same thing with coal, natural gas, and uranium that we have done with oil — do nothing until the fuel supply shortages and drastic price increases hit?
By 2035, it will be starkly evident that coal, natural gas, and uranium are non-renewable fuels with impending finite limits. Before any new power plants are built in that decade, business risk assessments will call into question whether any power plant that uses these non-renewable fuels will be able to operate economically for its full design life.
Also by 2035 — or perhaps much sooner — climate change will either be disproven or have become very obvious. It mattered not what people thought of Copernicus' theory about the planets circling the sun. It's like that with scientific issues. If they have no basis, they fade away. However, if the concern is valid, it proves out.
By 2035 it will clearly be time to move to a clean, safe and 100% renewable-energy based power generation system.
If we have followed Strategies #1 (efficiency and distributed power) and #2 (Energy Storage Generators), we will already know how to do this, and do it affordably. We can continue to add more wind, geothermal, hydro, solar thermal, photovoltaic, biomass, and other renewable power generation without confusion about how to mesh these together in an electric grid.
If, however, we choose to do politically motivated boondoggles, by definition these will fail. We will have learned what doesn't work — but not what does.
A country thrives by tapping abundant and affordable natural resources. If we go the right path the resources we can tap are enormous. According to the USGS, geothermal resources alone can supply roughly 550,000 MW (mean value of estimated resources) in the U.S. A study by Navigant Consulting found over 400,000 MW of water power resources. Solar and wind resources are even greater in magnitude.
This is personal. My two year old grandson Ashton will only be 26 years old in 2035. His generation will see the end of affordable natural gas, coal and uranium. What are we leaving them? There will be no end to the sun, the wind, the rain (hydro power), or the heat in the earth.
We can build a practical Legacy System. The time to start is now.
Article originally published at www.EnergyEconomyOnline.com